There you have it. After 2.5 years, the European Court of Human Rights has confirmed what was obvious to everyone who followed the Kirovles case, read the case materials, and especially watched the courtroom livestream. The case was fabricated from top to bottom.
The ECHR found that this cannot be called a trial. Ofitserov and I were each awarded €8,000 in damages. Legal costs will also be reimbursed: €22,000 and €48,000.
Now, under the law, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation must overturn the verdict in this case.
I want to thank everyone who supported us and our families before the trial, during the trial, and after it. Those who came to the hearings. Those who stood outside the courthouse with one-person pickets. And especially everyone who took to the streets on July 18, 2013. It is thanks to you that Ofitserov and I were able to await this decision in freedom rather than in prison.
Many thanks to everyone who helped spread information about the case and assisted us with the financial expert analysis.
Special thanks to our lawyers: Olga Mikhailova, Vadim Kobzev, Svetlana Davydova, and Sergei Kobelev.
And separately, I want to express my gratitude to Petya Ofitserov, who was just living his life until he ended up caught in this whirlwind because of me, purely by chance. No matter how many times they came to him and said, just testify against him and everything will be fine for you; it’s not even really false testimony, he picked a fight with the authorities, they’ll jail him anyway — he kept saying “no” all the way to the end, until they themselves handed him 4 years for his principles.
It was a hard time for everyone, but especially for his family with five children.
Truth is on our side, and we will win, because we are doing exactly what is being celebrated today: defending the Motherland from the thieves and scoundrels who have seized power in Russia.
Sooner or later, the verdicts in the fabricated Yves Rocher case, under which my brother Oleg was unjustly and disgracefully sent to prison, in the Bolotnaya case (the prosecution of protesters after the 2012 Bolotnaya Square rally in Moscow), and in all the other political trials will also be overturned.
And the time will come when justice can be obtained in a Russian court as well, not only at the ECHR. Our task is to bring that time closer through our work.
The full court ruling is here: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-161060
P.S.
The above findings show that the domestic courts failed to secure a fair hearing in the applicants’ criminal case, and it may even be said that they showed no concern for plausibility. It is noteworthy that the courts dismissed without examination the applicants’ allegations of political persecution, which were, at the very least, worthy of discussion for the following reasons.
The Court notes that the first applicant’s anti-corruption campaign gained momentum during 2010; in that same year, it targeted senior officials, including the President of the Russian Federation, a Deputy Prime Minister, and the head of the Investigative Committee. Mr. Navalny’s investigations attracted considerable attention among his online followers, as well as among a broader audience through other media outlets. Regardless of whether the officials concerned acknowledged those publications or whether the allegations were contested, the officials undoubtedly found them unwelcome. Moreover, it became clear that the first applicant did not intend to confine his investigations to the audience of niche media, but aspired to become an active national-level politician capable of addressing the wider public. From the moment the judgment entered into force, he was deprived of the right to participate in elections and his freedom of movement was restricted. It is also relevant to note that his conviction became the formal basis for house arrest, the terms of which included, among other restrictions, a ban on public statements, including those related to criminal cases.
It would appear that the first applicant’s publications were a regular occurrence, and that almost any date on which his prosecution might have begun would inevitably have coincided with some of his articles appearing in the media. Nevertheless, it is impossible not to note that the Kirovles investigation was first opened on 9 December 2010, three weeks after the publication of an investigation into a major financial scandal connected with the Eastern Siberia–Pacific Ocean oil pipeline project, in which senior Russian officials were implicated. Over the following two years, the investigation was suspended and reopened several times, but in 2012 it was definitively resumed on the direct instructions of Mr. Bastrykin, the head of the Investigative Committee. This occurred at a time when the first applicant was investigating Mr. Bastrykin’s own business interests and residence permit, which were incompatible with his official position (see paragraph 31 above). The criminal case was reopened on Bastrykin’s direct orders, as reflected in his speech of 5 July 2012, when he expressed regret over its earlier suspension and unequivocally promised disciplinary measures against any investigator who refused to continue the criminal case against the first applicant.
It is evident to the European Court, as it should have been to the domestic courts, that there is a link between the first applicant’s public activities and the Investigative Committee’s decisions to bring charges against him. For that very reason, it was the duty of the national courts to examine carefully the first applicant’s allegations of political pressure and to determine whether, despite that link, there was a genuine basis for prosecuting him. The same applies to the second applicant, who had an arguable complaint that he had been prosecuted solely as a means of opening a criminal case against the first applicant. By disregarding these allegations, the courts themselves reinforced the impression that the true reason for the applicants’ prosecution and conviction was political.
The foregoing considerations lead the Court to conclude that the criminal proceedings against the applicants, taken as a whole, amounted to a violation of their right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
In view of this, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine separately the applicants’ remaining complaints under Article 6 §§ 1-3 of the Convention.